Digg, Flickr, Reddit, Meebo, Odeo. What do they all have in common? Well, aside from their being part of all this “Web 2.0” hype (AJAXy-websites, community-driven/oriented content, etc.), they have weird names that seem nonsensical at first glance.

Then again, I have no room to talk considering that our business blog is named Biziki and our former gadget blog was named Gadzooki.

Share your OPML is an interesting concept. Upload your OPML file showing all of the feeds that you subscribe to… then use the site to compare to what others are reading, find new feeds, and so on.

The inner geek in me gets a kick out of looking at this site and seeing what others are reading.. but like most geek sites, I see alot of inbreeding going on over there. A-Listers reading A-Listers, and so on.

The real challenge, the one that Arrington talks about in his post, is how to get more folks to ‘Share their OPML’ on the site.

The real question though is will we ever get enough OPMLs on this site to make it a true measurement method.. right now, I don’t trust the metrics at this site.

O’Reilly has now responded twice to the multitude of bloggers covering this story. In their first post, they apologized for not contacting the non-profit agency in Ireland, but did not back away from using trademark law to “protect” their trademark.

Donagh Kiernan of IT@Cork (to whom the letter was addressed) graciously talked with me late in the work day on a Friday (Irish time), and we’ve resolved the service mark issue. O’Reilly and CMP are fine with IT@Cork using “Web 2.0” in the name of their June 8 conference. And I apologized again to Donagh for the tone of our letter, and for that fact that we didn’t contact IT@Cork before sending it. That’s not the way we want to do business, and as a few of you (OK, more than a few) have noted, it was a mistake.

The real issue here isn’t about defending trademarks, I’m all for that. It’s the fact that O’Reilly went out and tried to trademark what I believe we all perceive as a common term – Web 2.0. That’s almost like trademarking the term ‘Blog’ – it shouldn’t be legal.

Online journalists are entitled to the conditional privilege arising from consitutional guarantees of a free press. Divulging confidential sources can only be compelled when there is a “need sufficient to overbalance the inhibitory effect of such disclosure upon the free flow of ideas and information which is the core object of our guarantees of free speech and press.” The petitioners are entitled to the privilege, and Apple failed to show a need sufficient to overcome it.